Show M1N1NB CASE ON TRIAL Light on Suit of Harrington vs Farnsworth TESTIMONY AS TO PAYMENTS Farnsworth Paid tlio Amount Agreed on for the Claims Involved but the Withholding of S500 Each from I I Harrington and McNally as Commission Com-mission to the Man who Negotiated the Sale Caused them to Refuse tho Sums Tendered and to Insist on Forfeiture TJie mining case of Dan Harrington and John McNnlly Blngham mining men against P T Farnsworlh el al came OP for trial yesterday before Jidne lilies without a Jury The plaintiffs alleged that on May 4 1SX they and R IX McDonald were ihe owners of the Antelope a porlloi j of hit Clnrk time Rams Horn and the Big Chief mining claims at Gingham ant on tile dale named gave P T Fnrnsworth an option to purchase the properties for 30000 of which 1000 uas pak down and a note of Purns orths for 3000 due In thIrty days was also paid over The terms oC the option were that of the remamlni SITOOO the sum of 9000 wasto be imid In ninety days and 15000 in six months the payments to be made in equAl pre poiticns to Harrington McDonald and McNally The deed to the property was placed in escrow with W C Hal who vas to deliver 11 to Farnsworth when tile final payment was made The plaintiffs alleged that Farnsworth de faulted In tin final payment of 15000 notwithstanding which Hall dalivercd him the docd to the properties Plaintiffs Plain-tiffs asked that tile option be declared void that time deed lo twothirds of the proper bo returned to them and flint the money Farnsworlh laid be de cliUGd forfeited STATEMENT OF DEFENSE The defendant Farnsworth denied thai ho had fulled in making any of the payments and alleged thai the final payment of 15000 was made on November No-vember 1 I 1S99 within the sllpulaicd lime Farnsworth also alleged that after time contract was made by mutual consent it was modified so as to consider con-sider Hall as trustee and agent of the plaintiffs and il was contended that they were bound by the acts of Hall Farnsworth prayed that the action be dismissed R D McDonald coowner will the plaIntiffs Harrington and McNally refused re-fused lo Join in the complaint and was made a party defendant In his answer an-swer McDonald allegethat Hall wan the agent of both plaintiffs and defendants de-fendants that Farnsworth had made all the payments to Hall and that ho McDonald had received his proportion propor-tion of it bul that Harrington and Mc Nally refused lo receive their proper LIons of the last 15000 when tendered to them by Hall TESTIMONY AS TO PAYMENTS McNallyv 8fld Harrington when examined ex-amined testified that Hall on account of the last payment had tendered them 4500 each Instead of 5000 each and that they refused thb londdr and for failure In the payment of the full amount considered con-sidered time option canceled and Instl tuted these proceedings W C Hall testified that ho had received re-ceived all the pa > mens from Farnsworth Farns-worth including the 15000 as provided pro-vided in the contract and handed Farnsworth the deed Of the last pay f meat of 15000 ho paid McDonald 5000 less 10 for ro enuo stamps on the deed and he tendered Harrington and Mc Nally > I500 each less 10 each for revenue rev-enue stamps and deposited the money lo their credit in MjcCornlcks bank The reason he did nol tender them the full 5000 was that a commission of 1000 for effecting the sale had to be paid to a man named Free and that sum was held back lo pay him Witness Wit-ness said that Harrington and McNally had agreed to pay thai amount of commission com-mission to Free and Farnsworth had paid him 1000 making a total commission commis-sion to Free of 2000 The reason nothing noth-ing was deducted from McDonalds share was that he not only did not agree to pay any commission but distinctly dis-tinctly refused to make such an agreement agree-ment The taking of testimony for the defendant was proceeding when court adjourned until today |